WRC control tyre supplyer

So for tyre we have basically had Michelin or Pirelli for many years, ever since FIA restricted teams to one brand.
DMack and MRT have tried to get the contract with FIA for the top class, but not succeeded.

Now we will get a new company, Hankook coming in.
Lets see how their testing towards next year will happen, and what the drivers feel about them.

Always cool with something new, even if I would like to have tyres from more than one manufacturer in all classes in WRC. At least for WRC2 and 3, where ryre manus could pay for cars ala DMack and MRT.

Will Hankook be a success, and maybe bring something new into the sport?

I hope so, it usually throws a few spanner’s in the works when things like this change.
i just hope the tyres are reliable in the sense that we don’t see a whole host of punctures that make the events a lottery. The actual performance of the tyres is secondary really, it doesn’t matter if they aren’t as ‘fast’ as Pirelli or Michelin, so long as they are reliable.

ERC with Tire War >> WRC spec tires

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fiscorpun

ERC with Tire War >> WRC spec tires

---

Not really, it's a source of spending and inequality and if you're on the "wrong" tyre you're screwed. It kind of works in customer series like ERC but for top level championships I think it's a thing of the past. The only other championship that has it that I can think of is SuperGT in Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seb_sh

Not really, it's a source of spending and inequality and if you're on the "wrong" tyre you're screwed. It kind of works in customer series like ERC but for top level championships I think it's a thing of the past. The only other championship that has it that I can think of is SuperGT in Japan.

---

Exactly, tyre wars are a thing of the past generally due to the costs involved.

No top tier series should have a single tyre supplier....otherwise you may as well use a single car and be done with it. Adding a mix of tyres just adds more variables.....which I don't have a problem with. There was a time when we had Michelin v Pirelli, and the latter were useless on dry Tarmac, but if it was wet, they were the tyres to be on.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

No top tier series should have a single tyre supplier....otherwise you may as well use a single car and be done with it. Adding a mix of tyres just adds more variables.....which I don't have a problem with. There was a time when we had Michelin v Pirelli, and the latter were useless on dry Tarmac, but if it was wet, they were the tyres to be on.......

---

Every top tier series except SuperGT disagrees with you. Turns out car manufactures don’t want their multi million motorsport programme to live or die on the capability of their tyre supplier.
You also get preferred teams within brands, Ferraris Bridgestones were very different to those used by the likes of Jordan for instance, and I bet the same thing was going on in rallying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

There was a time when we had Michelin v Pirelli, and the latter were useless on dry Tarmac, but if it was wet, they were the tyres to be on.......

---

As a simple fan I'd totally agree with it, but this is exactly a situation in which a Board wouldn't ever want to deal with. Without the manufacturers, you'd get 60% less marketing and promotion of the championship, let's always keep this in mind!

Imagine losing the championship because you screwed the last rally due to the tyres, so it's not the team's fault or something in their hands. How would you explain it to few people that gave you like 80M euros (see Hyundai) and you flushed them into the toilet because of a partner?

Obligation to national ones is non sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doubled1978

Every top tier series except SuperGT disagrees with you. Turns out car manufactures don’t want their multi million motorsport programme to live or die on the capability of their tyre supplier.
You also get preferred teams within brands, Ferraris Bridgestones were very different to those used by the likes of Jordan for instance, and I bet the same thing was going on in rallying.

---

This is all a principal question and a very interesting one because it's one which will always divide people. Generally there are two major directions which one can take.

The first one is to make all condition for the drivers (crews) as even as possible by extreme restriction of the rules. By this you can achieve maximum weight of the crew skills in the overall result. In general it means to follow athletic sports and try to turn motorsport into human-only performance and by that also limit the vehicle to a simple tool - like shoes, skates, balls or hockey sticks. This is currect WRC.

The second option is to go back to the essence of motorsport which didn't start as a competition of drivers (crews) but as a competition of machines. It's obvious that the more freedom of rules you give the higher is the weight of the machine performance in the overall result. This is where crazy engineering ideas appear and win races - something lost in rallying of the 80'. I think that most technical people would prefer more freedom of rules, not only about tyres but also about engines, suspension, you name it. The excitement coming from the technical development used to be part of the game but it's long gone. To be honest I am not interested in today's searching for which team used 0,5° larger castor or a slightly more angled wing leading edge on otherwise completely same machines.

Now back to the tyres. You present something as a pure risk but in the same time it's also a potentional advantage. You can loose but just like that you can win, and win a lot. And it's not in any way a lottery. The manufacturers know how to measure performance and how to select their suppliers. In the end they can throw whatever shit on the tyre manufacturers but the selection is their choice. Having a single supplier is easy for everyone but it removes part of the competition which some other people would like to see.